June 2006 Russia exam
How stable was the Tsarist regime in Russia on the eve of the First World War in 1914? This is our first assessment for Term 3 and if I remember correct will be early week 4 sometime. It's not perfect but I have made some concise points that I am using as paragraphs. For all these points you need to be able to see and say why it made the nation more stable/unstable. 1. Stolypin's unrelenting war on violent political opponents. By 1908 political assasinations had dropped to 365. In 1910 the combined number members of revolutionary groups was 10% of the 1905 total. 2. Peasant wealth/prosperity. By 1915 50% of all peasants enjoyed hereditary ownership of land. Although this date passes the end date for the question by one year, this substantial improvement shows that hereditary land ownership was increasing on the eve of WW1 and thus created stability. This was all thanks to Stolypin. He also encouraged the Kulaks as a class and in 1913 there was a record harvest. 3. The Tsar made reforms and then limited them. Although this means that no great change was made it did result in stability. Think of it like this: in 1905 there is unrest, so the tsar introduces the October Manifesto (1905) which calms the population and introduces a Duma, this meant stability. In 1906 he introduces the Fundamental Laws, giving back power to the Tsar. The pacifing effect of the Manifesto was still in palce and the autocracy healed meaning the Tsar could rule by decree as normal, thus stabilising the country. (Both contradictory legislations achieved stability). 4. The lifespan of Dumas. The first two Dumas were very short lived, and survived only a matter of months. In 1907 the Tsar introduced the Electoral Law which meant the third Duma was dominated by 'Octoberists'. This third Duma lasted 1907-12. This shows that the Dumas' lifespans were increasing which showed increasing stability. 5. 1905 v. 1917 Revolutions. This also passes the question's end date but is relevant if you relate it back! In 1917 the tsar did not have army support, his regime became unstable and as a result his regime collapsed. In 1905 he did have Army support and kept it at least until 1914. Therefore he had stability (army = stability). Furthermore, the very fact that his regime weathered the 1905 revolution goes to show the stability of his regime. _________________ 6. Evidence of instability. Despite facts and proofs of stability there are facts to say otherwise. In the years 1910-14 there were 13,000 peasant uprisings and also the Lena Goldfield massacre of 1912 which then resulted in a wave of sympathy strikes. Furthermore in the last 6 months of peace 150 million workers went on strike. 7. The Tsar himself. The Tsar was weak in person and let his personality get in the way of proper ruling. he feared people brither than himself and that meant clouded judgment as he fired some of his most able ministers such as Witte. He also was planning on firing Stolypin before he was killed. Proof of his weakness which caused much instability was the afct he had to rely on autocratic power. His regime was not stable enough for any other input. Tha Tsar was in such a state that he had to have complete sole control to hold it all together. A further example is the life of the Dumas. The Tsar never fully supported the Dumas and dissolved them quickly. This meant ministers were coming and going which created instability as nothing could get done. _________________ Conclusion: There was a wave of patriotism and support for the Tsar on the eve of the First World War which meant stability. However it can be said that war brings out the deepest strains in a nation and whilst Russia fought the flaws of the years leading up end of peace were prominent as supplies were inefficient and organisation was chaotic. Nevertheless Gerschenkron said: "in the absence of war Russia could have continued on the road to progressive westernisation". All in all I believe it's a 5:2 split towards a stable regime. Good luck! -James